Manning, shocked by “the bloodlust,” went with WikiLeaks

Watching soldiers kill "like a child torturing an ant with a magnifying glass."

Over the course of two hours in a military courtroom today, Bradley Manning explained why—and in precise detail, how—he sent WikiLeaks confidential diplomatic cables and "war logs." Bradley's 35-page statement, read over the course of a few hours this afternoon, followed the news that he had pleaded guilty to 10 lesser counts among the many charges against him. The admissions were not part of a plea bargain; Manning still faces trial in June on the most serious charges, such as "aiding the enemy."

Manning was flanked by his civilian lawyer, David Coombs, on one side and two military defence lawyers on the other. Wearing full uniform, the soldier read out the document at high speed, occasionally stumbling over the words and at other points laughing at his own comments.

The American people had the right to know "the true costs of war," Manning said in court today today. He continued:

"I felt we were risking so much for people who seemed unwilling to cooperate with us, leading to frustration and hatred on both sides. I began to become depressed at the situation we found ourselves mired in year after year." [CBS News]

"We were obsessed with capturing and killing human targets on lists and ignoring goals and missions. I believed if the public, particularly the American public, could see this it could spark a debate on the military and our foreign policy in general [that] might cause society to reconsider the need to engage in counter-terrorism while ignoring the human situation of the people we engaged with every day." [The Guardian]

He was particularly upset by video of a 2007 Apache helicopter attack that was ultimately found to have killed civilians and a Reuters journalist. "[T]he bloodlust they seemed to have, they seemed not to value human life," said Manning. "For me that was like a child torturing an ant with a magnifying glass."

Ultimately, Manning decided not to keep the video classified. He uploaded it to WikiLeaks and it spread like wildfire, becoming known as the infamous "collateral murder" video. Manning used Tor anonymizing software to upload the video.

Rebuffed by newspapers, Manning turns to an admired website

That was the first step in what became a deluge of leaked data. After the video went viral, Manning was approached by a WikiLeaks figure named "Ox," whom he assumed to be Julian Assange. Manning gave himself the codename of "Nathaniel Frank," after a character in a novel he'd recently read.

First, Manning decided to leak the millions of war documents he had from Iraq and Afghanistan. Remarkably, he actually tried to give them to two leading US newspapers—and was turned away. Manning said a message he left at the New York Times was not returned, and a reporter at The Washington Post didn't take him seriously. He also considered contacting the website Politico but ultimately didn't approach them because of bad weather conditions.

Spokespeople for the Post and the Times both said today that those newspapers had no knowledge of an attempt by Manning to offer information to them.

At one point during pre-trial motions, prosecutors suggested they would have taken legal action against the Times had they published the information before Wikileaks had. "Publishing information in a newspaper [can] indirectly convey information to the enemy," a military prosecutor told Col. Denise Lind, who is overseeing the case.

Manning ultimately decided to send the documents to Wikileaks. He had become aware of the website in 2009, the same year it released more than 500,000 text messages sent the day of the 9/11 attacks—a move that had impressed him.

The location from which Manning decided to send what he called "the most significant documents of our time"? A Barnes & Noble in suburban Maryland. He saved the files on the memory stick on his camera and uploaded them from the bookstore during his mid-tour leave.

Late in the day, Col. Lind questioned Manning about the seeming contradiction between his justification for his actions and his admission in his guilty plea that he had undermined the "good order and discipline" of the armed forces.

"Regardless of my opinions, it's beyond my pay-grade, it's beyond my authority to make these decisions," Manning replied, according to The Guardian. "There are channels you are supposed to go through. I didn't even look at those channels–that's not how we do business."

Just based on the 10 charges Manning has pled guilty to, he faces up to 20 years in prison. If convicted on additional charges after his June trial, he could receive a life sentence.

193 Reader Comments

The problem is this information would have never gotten out if it wasn't leaked. Manning had the moral compass to go pass the "I'm just following orders" routine and expose some of what's really going on overseas.

No, he didn't have that option sorry. His moral compass is spinning. He is a traitor to his country. There are legal ways to be a "whistleblower" and he chose to not go that way.

American support for Genocide in El Salvador, Guatemala and Cambodia happened yesterday. The men responsible walk in the open. Agent orange is still claiming victims in Vietnam and Laos. Vinncennes killers got medals. Vietnam war war-criminals walk out in the open and Calley got 3 months for My Lai. Waterboarding and killing uniformed enemy soldiers through beating and torture has happened and no one sits in jail.

But today ..... surely the US is the good guy.

Don't forget, the US is also the only country to ever drop a couple of nukes on another country. It's funny how the only time you see someone pay for doing something wrong is when they show the corruption within the US military and government - the people who are actually corrupt just keep on keepin on.

He plead not guilty the Article 104 charge (that's aiding the enemy, if you're unclear), which carries the potential death penalty. So the entirety of the trial will focus on whether or not what Manning did substantiates complicit assistance to an enemy.

[...]

I applaud PFC Manning for pleading guilty to the charges, but I think Mr. Coombs has failed him in pleading not guilty on Article 104. Hopefully he won't swing for Mr. Coombs' error.

You seriously wanted Bradley Manning to admit "aiding the enemy"? I suppose if your intention is to undermine fundamental democratic principles, pleading guilty to "aiding the enemy" for making public interest information widely available is a pretty good start.

Geez, I can not think of a worst precedent setting on the path to fully fledged authorianism than having someone agree that publishing public interest information is "aiding the enemy".

That kind of thinking is a cancer on what we like to think as our democratic societies. For authoritarian governments, everbody is presumed a potential enemy, so any citizen of such government can be found guilty of "aiding the enemy" if and when the agents of such government decide to go after him.

I love how liberals like Manning have such a convoluted view of how the world works. According to Bradley, all we have to do is throw the Blue Frisbees of Peace and pass flowers to our enemies. We will all soon join hands and sing Kum Bay Ah and all will be well. Hey, Bradley.... turn your back on your enemy and he will have your head on a stake leading into his village. Assuming that your enemy has the same values as our society if your biggest mistake. They have absolutely NO value for human lives as demonstrated EVERY day by strapping bombs on their children and mass murdering innocent civilians in market places. Or flying airplanes of innocent people into building to knock them down. Or, by the way the rape and torture their women property.

It's a tough world outside our borders. Bradely deserves to be shot at dawn. But, we all know Jane Fondog set the precedent for selling out our country...

You know, the US seems to be pretty damned good at getting along with these "enemies", even going so far as to supply them with weapons and give them military training. They only become enemies once the US either doesn't need them anymore, or there's oil for the taking.

I wonder how things would be different if he'd ONLY released the helicopter video. If that was the case, then you could truely make a case that he was intending to be a whistleblower.

He didn't though. And, in my opinion, that's what's making this a problem.

Release a classified video that can be argued shows improper actions? Illegal, yes, but potentially covered by whistleblower protections (though there are official channels to do that in the military that you need to follow first). I can see public defense of him at that point.

Release a bunch of extra information that I'm pretty sure he'd never read in it's entirety anyway? A completely different issue. I don't buy the "it shouldn't have been classified!!!" arguement, sorry. And this is where it becomes a problem.

There isn't much debate that the helo video resulted in the death of anyone, but there is debate and a case can be made that the other information did. And, if anything, that's what's going to get him convicted with the most severe punishments.

American support for Genocide in El Salvador, Guatemala and Cambodia happened yesterday. The men responsible walk in the open. Agent orange is still claiming victims in Vietnam and Laos. Vinncennes killers got medals. Vietnam war war-criminals walk out in the open and Calley got 3 months for My Lai. Waterboarding and killing uniformed enemy soldiers through beating and torture has happened and no one sits in jail.

But today ..... surely the US is the good guy.

Don't forget, the US is also the only country to ever drop a couple of nukes on another country. It's funny how the only time you see someone pay for doing something wrong is when they show the corruption within the US military and government - the people who are actually corrupt just keep on keepin on.

Of course, let's ignore the fact that most people with any knowledge agree that there was significantly LESS loss of life through the dropping of those nukes than there would have been otherwise. But it's more convenient to gloss over that part, huh?

Any kind of warfare is waged upon information assymetry - if you don't know advanced weapon technology and wage war with spears, you are likely to lose, if you tweet your troops location, you will lose. It is as simple as that - the side that wins the information war, also wins in the actual fight, with the right intel one knows exactly where and when to strike and with what force.Since this is still a a sad age where one group of people wages open, military war against another, in such circumstances those who leak that sensitive information have to be punished severely to deter any further leaks.While I am sympathetic to Manning's feelings and cause, he has to be punished for his actions.

Maybe Bradley Manning felt that he had nothing to lose as any day he might forfeit his life in a silly war that was barely covered by the media back home training afghans only for them to turn on their allies, everyday subject to IED and mortar attacks from people still stuck in the 14th Century. He may have felt so bleak and depressed at his future and trivialisation of his patriotic duty that he tried to tell the folks back home what he was dealing with, backed into a corner, one step away from suicide.

Has it been ruled out that he was not of sound mind when he uploaded these secrets to Wikileaks?

Releasing the documents he did potentially put my brother's life at risk, since he was deployed in Afghanistan around that time. So I don't really have any sympathy for Manning and very little admiration for him.

Has it been ruled out that he was not of sound mind when he uploaded these secrets to Wikileaks?

Manning spent an hour detailing his motivations for releasing the classified information, and yet you still dismiss him all and prefer to question his mental health? Because man, you know, how f*cking weird is that, leaking stuff to Wikileaks!

Vietnam war war-criminals walk out in the open and Calley got 3 months for My Lai.

Calley was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment by the military court, who had no way of knowing the president would intervene and Calley would ultimately only serve 3.5 years. No idea where you got the 3 months number from though. Ironically, if the military process had been adhered to and civilian leadership had not intervened, this case was a perfect example of how capable the military is of policing itself - as far as the military was concerned, Calley was guilty and should serve life imprisonment.

American support for Genocide in El Salvador, Guatemala and Cambodia happened yesterday. The men responsible walk in the open. Agent orange is still claiming victims in Vietnam and Laos. Vinncennes killers got medals. Vietnam war war-criminals walk out in the open and Calley got 3 months for My Lai. Waterboarding and killing uniformed enemy soldiers through beating and torture has happened and no one sits in jail.

But today ..... surely the US is the good guy.

Don't forget, the US is also the only country to ever drop a couple of nukes on another country. It's funny how the only time you see someone pay for doing something wrong is when they show the corruption within the US military and government - the people who are actually corrupt just keep on keepin on.

Of course, let's ignore the fact that most people with any knowledge agree that there was significantly LESS loss of life through the dropping of those nukes than there would have been otherwise. But it's more convenient to gloss over that part, huh?

I'm pretty sure the hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians who died probably wouldn't have if they didn't have nukes dropped on their heads.

American support for Genocide in El Salvador, Guatemala and Cambodia happened yesterday. The men responsible walk in the open. Agent orange is still claiming victims in Vietnam and Laos. Vinncennes killers got medals. Vietnam war war-criminals walk out in the open and Calley got 3 months for My Lai. Waterboarding and killing uniformed enemy soldiers through beating and torture has happened and no one sits in jail.

But today ..... surely the US is the good guy.

Don't forget, the US is also the only country to ever drop a couple of nukes on another country. It's funny how the only time you see someone pay for doing something wrong is when they show the corruption within the US military and government - the people who are actually corrupt just keep on keepin on.

Of course, let's ignore the fact that most people with any knowledge agree that there was significantly LESS loss of life through the dropping of those nukes than there would have been otherwise. But it's more convenient to gloss over that part, huh?

I'm pretty sure the hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians who died probably wouldn't have if they didn't have nukes dropped on their heads.

As compared to the potential million plus (literally) people that would have died in a land invasion? Or that more people died during firebombings leading up to the two nukes?

I'd rather not get into the topic on whether he was right or wrong, but I have to credit this kid and his giant brass balls for sticking to his story like this. Gotta give him credit for not backing down on his convictions.

Unfortunately, Manning will have at least 20 years to think about the nature of his balls, if not a lifetime (regardless of how long he suffers imprisonment.) I daresay it will not take long after all of this pre-sentencing drama wears off for him to come to bitterly lament his actions. It isn't as if he accomplished anything except ruining his own life, is it? I do feel sorry for the kid as I feel he was a young and naive idealist nastily used by Wiki-Sneaks so that what's-his-name could draw publicity to his money-making donation efforts. If you look closely in the picture here, you can see what's-his-name's footprints clearly on Manning's back.

As far as "sticking to his story" goes, it's hard to refute what you did or to deny it when the evidence against you is overwhelming. I don't see that he could say much more than what he said. War is hell as they say, and anyone who thinks it should be or ought to be a sanitary process conducted by "gentlemen," and according to Marquis/Marquess of Queensbury rules, is a fool. I wonder what Manning thought about the film clips depicting Americans and the soldiers of other countries having their legs and arms blown off by the roadside/mailbox bombs they routinely encountered. I wonder, too, if Manning ever even saw the film clips of the 9/11 attack--talk about "ants under a magnifying glass"--sheesh. It doesn't appear that he thought very much at all about either, unfortunately. Maybe if he had, he would not be where he is today.

We should all be doing what we can to support freeing Pvt Manning. He has been is jail for 1000 days already. Most in solitary confinement. Everyone should watch the video he leaked with the shooting of civilians, reporter, and cameraman.

You mean those "civilians" with AK-47s and RPGs, following and watching US forces from a few blocks away while said US forces were reporting being fired upon. Yeah, it was completely black and white.

Oh give me a break. If Iraq or Russia or China were to invade and occupy the USA, would you not have innocent, ordinary, regular CIVILIANS carrying AK's and RPG's for self defense?

...As compared to the potential million plus (literally) people that would have died in a land invasion? Or that more people died during firebombings leading up to the two nukes?

People who don't clearly understand this are the worst sort of naive dunces, imo... Most estimates at the time had 1M allied soldiers and 1M Japanese soldiers and citizens dead in the event of an allied invasion of Japan. The US was fighting wars on two fronts, the Germans in Europe and the Japanese in the Pacific. The entire A-bomb project was begun to end the war with as few casualties as possible, and so that the wars would remain off American soil until their conclusion. The Germans surrendered to the allies before the bomb was dropped in Europe (ie, we had already invaded Europe to defeat Germany, so the European wars were finished conventionally.)

Not so with Japan. Japan was warned of the bomb and given an ultimatum for surrender, which it rejected. The first bomb was dropped. A second ultimatum was given, and rejected by Japan a second time. So the second bomb was dropped, after which Japan unconditionally surrendered. It's estimated that use of the bomb literally saved millions of lives on both sides in terms of ending the Japanese conflict. It is not difficult to understand that contention, imo. The Japanese certainly do not dispute it.

Not to get this discussion off-topic, but it's intriguing how Q1DM6's message was downvoted into oblivion so I couldn't see it, but then everyone responded and quoted it so I've now read it 4 times instead of once.

One of the downsides of flat comments. Right now it's on people not to quote stuff like that. Once a post gets voted down far enough the quote button is removed, but often that doesn't happen in time.

No, the real problem is the quoting is turned off. That, coupled with voting based on political viewpoints, means that effectively you have a mob deciding who gets to speak. Quoting should be left on no matter how far downvoted a comment is, and display of downvoted articles should be at the discretion of the reader, not Ars.

If the military is running round doing things that the general public can't know about, maybe that is a good indication that they shouldn't be doing those things.

I have no problem with operation information being kept secret while and operation is happening, but there are no grounds not to release that information promptly after the operation finishes.

There is absolutely no justification for keeping information secret for months, let alone years.

The 'puts peoples lives at risk' argument is nonsensical. Most of the deployments that America has made in the last decade were completely unnecessary. They could have put no ones lives at risk but not pursuing a retrograde policy of aggression.

Using "secrecy" to cover a crime is a problem, and we have examples of this in the Bush administration covering up spying on US citizens with claims of secrecy.

However, I am not sure that I agree with the idea that operations should be disclosed so quickly, as that might also disclose methods that could be useful in the future. It is a tough balancing act, and certainly there are legitimate pressures to keep legitimate actions and techniques secret.

...As compared to the potential million plus (literally) people that would have died in a land invasion? Or that more people died during firebombings leading up to the two nukes?

People who don't clearly understand this are the worst sort of naive dunces, imo... Most estimates at the time had 1M allied soldiers and 1M Japanese soldiers and citizens dead in the event of an allied invasion of Japan. The US was fighting wars on two fronts, the Germans in Europe and the Japanese in the Pacific. The entire A-bomb project was begun to end the war with as few casualties as possible, and so that the wars would remain off American soil until their conclusion. The Germans surrendered to the allies before the bomb was dropped in Europe (ie, we had already invaded Europe to defeat Germany, so the European wars were finished conventionally.)

Not so with Japan. Japan was warned of the bomb and given an ultimatum for surrender, which it rejected. The first bomb was dropped. A second ultimatum was given, and rejected by Japan a second time. So the second bomb was dropped, after which Japan unconditionally surrendered. It's estimated that use of the bomb literally saved millions of lives on both sides in terms of ending the Japanese conflict. It is not difficult to understand that contention, imo. The Japanese certainly do not dispute it.

You are forgetting the 100,000 Chinese and south east asian civilians dying each month at that point in time.

I'm sorry, but I walked into watching this video with an open mind. I understand that in life -- especially war -- things can escalate and happen very quickly. But anybody in their right mind that's seen this video can see that the soldiers here were bloodthirsty. They were looking for an excuse to kill. These people walking around with weapons were of no threat and if they were, could have been handled.

And what about their being some kind of military operation going on near their location? I'd be hard pressed to believe that people living in THEIR OWN COUNTRY are well informed on where they are/aren't supposed to be and what they are/aren't supposed to have (weapon-wise). Think of how well we as American people are aware of our own rights, local/state/federal laws. To make this black and white (in favor on our military) is just grossly irresponsible.

In the case where we were being occupied by a super power that abused their power and used any excuse they could get to kill you, wouldn't you protect yourself? I mean, come on, guys! The dude in the video was BEGGING for this nearly dying ant to pickup a weapon so he could shoot back.They were getting excited to shoot up a van with normal people just trying to pickup the dead and wounded. And before you say, "Oh, well they could have been a threat", come on! What BS. I don't care if it's conflict. I barely care (sorry if it sound un-American) if our soldiers are "potentially" in harms way. They sign up for this job. They aren't just civilians watching out for their own ass. Shooting down people in another country that we're occupying and then a van trying to pick them up (clearly not grabbing weapons as they said) is just crap. It's terrible. It seriously pisses me off that we can sit here in a forum and talk about this "constructively" like we're playing some kind of damn game. Like killing people should be systematic and calculated by some very small risk thresh hold. What pisses me off more if that American media and government glamorizes it like some kind of honorable thing.

Yeah, hoorah. It's all great. That's why they hide the millions of damning documents and gigabytes of video, only leaving the good stuff. We're the good guys and it's crappy to think that I'm going to be down voted to hell because of my seemingly unpopular viewpoint.

...As compared to the potential million plus (literally) people that would have died in a land invasion? Or that more people died during firebombings leading up to the two nukes?

People who don't clearly understand this are the worst sort of naive dunces, imo... Most estimates at the time had 1M allied soldiers and 1M Japanese soldiers and citizens dead in the event of an allied invasion of Japan. The US was fighting wars on two fronts, the Germans in Europe and the Japanese in the Pacific. The entire A-bomb project was begun to end the war with as few casualties as possible, and so that the wars would remain off American soil until their conclusion. The Germans surrendered to the allies before the bomb was dropped in Europe (ie, we had already invaded Europe to defeat Germany, so the European wars were finished conventionally.)

Not so with Japan. Japan was warned of the bomb and given an ultimatum for surrender, which it rejected. The first bomb was dropped. A second ultimatum was given, and rejected by Japan a second time. So the second bomb was dropped, after which Japan unconditionally surrendered. It's estimated that use of the bomb literally saved millions of lives on both sides in terms of ending the Japanese conflict. It is not difficult to understand that contention, imo. The Japanese certainly do not dispute it.

There's actually a lot of contention about the idea dropping the bombs saved lives. It's thought among many historians that the Japanese would have surrendered due to the blockade and that the bombs weren't necessary and a land invasion never would have happened. Even studies done shortly after the war by the US itself came to the conclusion that dropping the bombs wasn't necessary. It's also thought that it was the Russian invasion just after the bombs that finally caused the Japanese to surrender, not the bombs. So, you can try to justify it all you want, the fact remains the US dropped two nukes on a country and they are the only country who has ever done so and it was the civilians who really suffered and still suffer to this day.

...As compared to the potential million plus (literally) people that would have died in a land invasion? Or that more people died during firebombings leading up to the two nukes?

People who don't clearly understand this are the worst sort of naive dunces, imo... Most estimates at the time had 1M allied soldiers and 1M Japanese soldiers and citizens dead in the event of an allied invasion of Japan. The US was fighting wars on two fronts, the Germans in Europe and the Japanese in the Pacific. The entire A-bomb project was begun to end the war with as few casualties as possible, and so that the wars would remain off American soil until their conclusion. The Germans surrendered to the allies before the bomb was dropped in Europe (ie, we had already invaded Europe to defeat Germany, so the European wars were finished conventionally.)

Not so with Japan. Japan was warned of the bomb and given an ultimatum for surrender, which it rejected. The first bomb was dropped. A second ultimatum was given, and rejected by Japan a second time. So the second bomb was dropped, after which Japan unconditionally surrendered. It's estimated that use of the bomb literally saved millions of lives on both sides in terms of ending the Japanese conflict. It is not difficult to understand that contention, imo. The Japanese certainly do not dispute it.

There's actually a lot of contention about the idea dropping the bombs saved lives. It's thought among many historians that the Japanese would have surrendered due to the blockade and that the bombs weren't necessary and a land invasion never would have happened. Even studies done shortly after the war by the US itself came to the conclusion that dropping the bombs wasn't necessary. It's also thought that it was the Russian invasion just after the bombs that finally caused the Japanese to surrender, not the bombs. So, you can try to justify it all you want, the fact remains the US dropped two nukes on a country and they are the only country who has ever done so and it was the civilians who really suffered and still suffer to this day.

Are you serious? Have you looked at what happened in Japan when the Emperor decided to surrender? There was an attempted coup that very, very nearly succeeded by officers that wanted to continue the war. In fact, the pressure to continue the war was so strong that the cabinet was completely deadlocked - the Emperor personally intervened to force the government to cease the war - he never used the term surrender at any time. Even then, he did so only because he believed Japan could no longer effectively fight. To his dying day the only thing about the war he regretted was losing, despite what any post war propaganda might say. In Japan, you can still find people to this day that think Japan should have kept fighting - especially now that they know that the US could not have made a third atomic bomb attack until 1946.

Anyone familiar with the Japanese politics and society understands that the battles in Iwa Jima and Okinawa were a cake walk compared to what would have happened in a land invasion of Japan.

Has it been ruled out that he was not of sound mind when he uploaded these secrets to Wikileaks?

Manning spent an hour detailing his motivations for releasing the classified information, and yet you still dismiss him all and prefer to question his mental health? Because man, you know, how f*cking weird is that, leaking stuff to Wikileaks!

I am merely providing him with a credible legal defense. He could have been suicidally depressed at the time, made the leaks as a final act and then been caught before he was able to kill himself. Many months have passed since then. People change. Who knows what effect his imprisonment has had on him. The support he has recieved from people around the world. Maybe he now feels optimistic about his deed and even if he accepts, pragmatically, that he will likely be punished, or executed, it was all worthwhile.

I am glad that he has lived long enough to see the US Military establishment and spineless media embarrassed by this whole debacle. His actions have served the purpose he must have hoped they would.

A suicidal man may commit a treasonable act against a warmongering state involved in two illegal invasions (neither of which are likely to diminish the threat of terrorism on US soil) in the clear knowledge that he may be executed by that same corrupt establishment. Better to die at their hands as a "traitor" having done what you can to 'blow the whistle' on their secret war crimes than to put a bullet in your own head in desperation, or let your pot-smoking afghan allies murder you, if the Taliban don't blow you up first, all for a people who want you out of their country as soon as possible.

First, Manning decided to leak the millions of war documents he had from Iraq and Afghanistan. Remarkably, he actually tried to give them to two leading US newspapers—and was turned away. Manning said a message he left at the New York Times was not returned, and a reporter at The Washington Post didn't take him seriously. He also considered contacting the website Politico but ultimately didn't approach them because of bad weather conditions.

Spokespeople for the Post and the Times both said today that those newspapers had no knowledge of an attempt by Manning to offer information to them.

At one point during pre-trial motions, prosecutors suggested they would have taken legal action against the Times had they published the information before Wikileaks had. "Publishing information in a newspaper [can] indirectly convey information to the enemy," a military prosecutor told Col. Denise Lind, who is overseeing the case.

No. Them denying any prior contact OR refusing to entertain the possibilities had absolutely nothing to do with any political ties they have to the Gov't whatsoever.

He plead not guilty the Article 104 charge (that's aiding the enemy, if you're unclear), which carries the potential death penalty. So the entirety of the trial will focus on whether or not what Manning did substantiates complicit assistance to an enemy.

[...]

I applaud PFC Manning for pleading guilty to the charges, but I think Mr. Coombs has failed him in pleading not guilty on Article 104. Hopefully he won't swing for Mr. Coombs' error.

You seriously wanted Bradley Manning to admit "aiding the enemy"? I suppose if your intention is to undermine fundamental democratic principles, pleading guilty to "aiding the enemy" for making public interest information widely available is a pretty good start.

Geez, I can not think of a worst precedent setting on the path to fully fledged authorianism than having someone agree that publishing public interest information is "aiding the enemy".

That kind of thinking is a cancer on what we like to think as our democratic societies. For authoritarian governments, everbody is presumed a potential enemy, so any citizen of such government can be found guilty of "aiding the enemy" if and when the agents of such government decide to go after him.

You are ignoring the fact that he actually did divulge secret information. And yes, confidential is actually secret as well.

He plead not guilty the Article 104 charge (that's aiding the enemy, if you're unclear), which carries the potential death penalty. So the entirety of the trial will focus on whether or not what Manning did substantiates complicit assistance to an enemy.

[...]

I applaud PFC Manning for pleading guilty to the charges, but I think Mr. Coombs has failed him in pleading not guilty on Article 104. Hopefully he won't swing for Mr. Coombs' error.

You seriously wanted Bradley Manning to admit "aiding the enemy"? I suppose if your intention is to undermine fundamental democratic principles, pleading guilty to "aiding the enemy" for making public interest information widely available is a pretty good start.

Geez, I can not think of a worst precedent setting on the path to fully fledged authorianism than having someone agree that publishing public interest information is "aiding the enemy".

That kind of thinking is a cancer on what we like to think as our democratic societies. For authoritarian governments, everbody is presumed a potential enemy, so any citizen of such government can be found guilty of "aiding the enemy" if and when the agents of such government decide to go after him.

You are ignoring the fact that he actually did divulge secret information. And yes, confidential is actually secret as well.

Well, if you are talking about sensitive information 'Secret', and 'Confidential' information are different levels of classification.

They called for and received permission to fire upon targets on the ground; the mitigating circumstance that prompted the control officer to allow free fire was the presence of a platoon nearby on the ground that had recently been pinned down in a nasty firefight and had two wounded.

It makes the situation a little different when you understand what's going on around the "two calm men in a helicopter," doesn't it? Probably clarifies why they received permission to open fire, doesn't it? Less cut-and-dry suddenly, isn't it?

Ah yes, that military platoon nearby certainly was under EXTREME danger from some unarmed guys (I don't see any weapons at them) in a van and a badly hurt, unarmed person. Good thing that they got them, who knows maybe they'd have run some soldier over on the way to the hospital!

ardent wrote:

Wrong. Watch some of the properly released predator feeds and re-watch the Apache feed. Tell me what's different. More to the point, that video actually is still classified. If a prosecutor wanted to be a tremendous dick he could charge you under the Espionage Act for possessing a copy.

No he could not and that was even already mentioned in this comments thread, stop spreading FUD would you?

And please enlighten us, what parts of this video contain sensitive information that when released would endager military personnel in the area? Well apart from the shooting of unarmed civilians and the bad PR that followed I mean. If your only reason to keep something hidden is "Would make us look bad", you have a real problem at your hands.

They called for and received permission to fire upon targets on the ground; the mitigating circumstance that prompted the control officer to allow free fire was the presence of a platoon nearby on the ground that had recently been pinned down in a nasty firefight and had two wounded.

It makes the situation a little different when you understand what's going on around the "two calm men in a helicopter," doesn't it? Probably clarifies why they received permission to open fire, doesn't it? Less cut-and-dry suddenly, isn't it?

Ah yes, that military platoon nearby certainly was under EXTREME danger from some unarmed guys (I don't see any weapons at them) in a van and a badly hurt, unarmed person. Good thing that they got them, who knows maybe they'd have run some soldier over on the way to the hospital!

ardent wrote:

Wrong. Watch some of the properly released predator feeds and re-watch the Apache feed. Tell me what's different. More to the point, that video actually is still classified. If a prosecutor wanted to be a tremendous dick he could charge you under the Espionage Act for possessing a copy.

No he could not and that was even already mentioned in this comments thread, stop spreading FUD would you?

And please enlighten us, what parts of this video contain sensitive information that when released would endager military personnel in the area? Well apart from the shooting of unarmed civilians and the bad PR that followed I mean. If your only reason to keep something hidden is "Would make us look bad", you have a real problem at your hands.

Once again, was the video the ONLY thing he released? No. Is aiding the enemy limited to simply endangering military personnel in the area? No.

I do agree with your last statement though, but that's not all this is about. If he'd ONLY released the video, we'd be having a completely different discussion and he probably wouldn't be in jail. Probably not still in the military, but this would most likely be over by now.

Ah yes, that military platoon nearby certainly was under EXTREME danger from some unarmed guys (I don't see any weapons at them) in a van and a badly hurt, unarmed person. Good thing that they got them, who knows maybe they'd have run some soldier over on the way to the hospital!

Well no offense, but I don't care if you could see any weapons on them. That's not your job. And whether or not a platoon in the area was in danger is irrelevant, especially when trying to postulate this long after the video was taken. What is relevant is all the information to the pilot/gunner, all the supporting info (whether from the ground or other airborne surveillance assets), and the governing ROEs at that time, in that area.

Voo42 wrote:

And please enlighten us, what parts of this video contain sensitive information that when released would endager military personnel in the area? Well apart from the shooting of unarmed civilians and the bad PR that followed I mean. If your only reason to keep something hidden is "Would make us look bad", you have a real problem at your hands.

I hope you realize that there are more reasons for keeping a video classified than the possibility of endangering military personnel in the area. Anything from the video resolution to the information displayed on-screen could be the reason a video is classified.

It is pretty simple in my opinion. Anything paid for with public money should be available to the public to view.

Secrecy is a blight on modern democracy.

Oh really? You might want to think really hard about that one. Public money pays for everything our armed forces do. Do you have the right to know where any given soldier is at any moment? Or where a team of SEAL's might be as they're executing a mission?

The kind of information you want to know, you have no business knowing, because it puts peoples lives at risk. The lives of people that put their own lives at stake to protect you.

While the American people have a right to know what the government is up to, there must be limits. It should be with the proper amount of consideration to the circumstances.

Perhaps blanket statements like "anything paid for with public money" aren't a good idea to throw around.

If the military is running round doing things that the general public can't know about, maybe that is a good indication that they shouldn't be doing those things.

I have no problem with operation information being kept secret while and operation is happening, but there are no grounds not to release that information promptly after the operation finishes.

There is absolutely no justification for keeping information secret for months, let alone years.

The 'puts peoples lives at risk' argument is nonsensical. Most of the deployments that America has made in the last decade were completely unnecessary. They could have put no ones lives at risk but not pursuing a retrograde policy of aggression.

So, for example, the public needs to know about a local cell phone vendor who is providing US forces with daily intel on the IED builders prepping in his area? Maybe that fact could be kept secret for a year after his last update... how generous! I'm sure there will be no repercussions to him or his family once its public knowledge. In fact, I'm sure he will be thrilled to offer assistance knowing full well that he will be exposed because the tax-paying public has a right to know the details of everything our govt is involved in. Do you really want the US to operate without anyone trusting it to keep secrets?

There's a reason we elect representatives to provide oversight to things that need to be kept secret from the public when secrecy is warranted. If you don't like the job they are doing, work to elect new ones.

Well no offense, but I don't care if you could see any weapons on them. That's not your job. And whether or not a platoon in the area was in danger is irrelevant, especially when trying to postulate this long after the video was taken. What is relevant is all the information to the pilot/gunner, all the supporting info (whether from the ground or other airborne surveillance assets), and the governing ROEs at that time, in that area.

So you're saying the pilot/gunner had special vision that allowed them to see things not actually recorded (i.e. existing)?

The speaker actually claims the people are picking up weapons - please show a single frame of the video at that time where any of those people is holding a weapon, or even walking towards one. Will be pretty hard though since the only thing they're doing is picking up a wounded man and trying to get him into the van.

Don't get me wrong I can see why you'd shoot at the first crowd, weapons and all, the problem only comes up as soon as we have a few unarmed people trying to help a wounded, unarmed person.

D-Fresh wrote:

I hope you realize that there are more reasons for keeping a video classified than the possibility of endangering military personnel in the area. Anything from the video resolution to the information displayed on-screen could be the reason a video is classified.

Yeah, the information seen on-screen looks extremely sensitive, I mean you see all this fancy militar.. oh right no you don't. And since the US actually released images taken from drones/helicopters beforehand we can exclude your second claim too. Lots of handwaving involved eh?

He plead not guilty the Article 104 charge (that's aiding the enemy, if you're unclear), which carries the potential death penalty. So the entirety of the trial will focus on whether or not what Manning did substantiates complicit assistance to an enemy.

[...]

I applaud PFC Manning for pleading guilty to the charges, but I think Mr. Coombs has failed him in pleading not guilty on Article 104. Hopefully he won't swing for Mr. Coombs' error.

[A disingenuous and/or misguided response].

Thank you for the Strawman, it will be of use in fending off crows.

You apparently missed -- or chose to ignore -- that Manning has, in effect, already admitted culpability to the charge of aiding the enemy by pleading guilty to violating the Espionage Act. This makes the trial rather a waste of time and effort, not some damning precedent being railroaded upon him.

Manning isn't an idiot. That much is clear. He doesn't have the legal acumen to determine the error in this course of action, however, which is typically where lawyers step in and clarify. Admitting his guilt to the charges is admirable; pleading guilty to all of them probably would have seen him sentenced to a couple of decades in prison. Manning appears to be comfortable with the price of his crimes, which is also admirable. He did, however, receive bad advice in challenging the Article 104 charges -- a plea of not guilty encourages the prosecutorial team to seek the greatest possible penalty. Given his admission of guilt in violation of the Espionage Act, this is a potentially fatal blunder before opening arguments are even made. Nobody really wants to see Manning swing over this, but his lawyer has opened him up to that possibility.

Voo42 wrote:

Ah yes, that military platoon nearby certainly was under EXTREME danger from some unarmed guys (I don't see any weapons at them) in a van and a badly hurt, unarmed person. Good thing that they got them, who knows maybe they'd have run some soldier over on the way to the hospital!

You didn't see any weapons on them. You're also not a trained observer. Nor do you have the benefit of the input of other trained observers on the ground nearby. The list of things you don't have vastly exceeds the list of things the flight crew on that gunship did have. Shit, they could even look around which is a pretty significant advantage in maintaining situational awareness.

Voo42 wrote:

No he could not and that was even already mentioned in this comments thread, stop spreading FUD would you?

And please enlighten us, what parts of this video contain sensitive information that when released would endager military personnel in the area? Well apart from the shooting of unarmed civilians and the bad PR that followed I mean. If your only reason to keep something hidden is "Would make us look bad", you have a real problem at your hands.

The un-edited clip is still classified; possession and transmission is still a violation of the Espionage Act. As I mentioned, the prosecutor would have to be an enormous dick to pursue it.

As I said, compare videos released legitimately (through disclosure by official channels) with the original. There's probably a blog post out there somewhere that breaks it down, point-by-point.

As far as classification goes, it has nothing to do with embarrassing the military. Looking bad is job 2 for the military. I think I've been spat at just as frequently as I have been thanked for my service. All of that without "concrete evidence" of malfeasance. People who want to believe the military is a fascist organization are going to do so regardless of what it is and isn't revealed in the public domain, and the military defends their right to leap to baseless conclusions.

Fundamentally, the military is a tool. Soldiers are going to follow orders and they're going to exercise their discretion when they can. They are fallible and make mistakes. In this case, however, no mistakes were made. Everything was done exactly as they had been trained. The outcome -- which is still unclear, by the way, aside from the journalists who know the risks of embedding with either side in an insurgency -- is as fortunate or as unfortunate as any particular pundit chooses to purport it is.

Information may want to be free, but so do the unstable electrons in Uranium. Food for thought: there's a lot more information with much greater yield than there is Uranium.

It is pretty simple in my opinion. Anything paid for with public money should be available to the public to view.

Secrecy is a blight on modern democracy.

Oh really? You might want to think really hard about that one. Public money pays for everything our armed forces do. Do you have the right to know where any given soldier is at any moment? Or where a team of SEAL's might be as they're executing a mission?

The kind of information you want to know, you have no business knowing, because it puts peoples lives at risk. The lives of people that put their own lives at stake to protect you.

While the American people have a right to know what the government is up to, there must be limits. It should be with the proper amount of consideration to the circumstances.

Perhaps blanket statements like "anything paid for with public money" aren't a good idea to throw around.

If the military is running round doing things that the general public can't know about, maybe that is a good indication that they shouldn't be doing those things.

I have no problem with operation information being kept secret while and operation is happening, but there are no grounds not to release that information promptly after the operation finishes.

There is absolutely no justification for keeping information secret for months, let alone years.

The 'puts peoples lives at risk' argument is nonsensical. Most of the deployments that America has made in the last decade were completely unnecessary. They could have put no ones lives at risk but not pursuing a retrograde policy of aggression.

Hahahaha, are you actually serious? I can think of MANY reasons something should be kept secret long after it happened and not because "we shouldn't be doing it".

Beyond ops, what about ongoing things? Should be throw out there every last little detail of advanced radar systems? Detailed blue prints and designs of the F-22? B-2? Tellar-Ulam thermonuclear weapons?

So you advocate for us to just let anyone who wants to know read every scrap of detail every generated about them?

What about informants names? Should we tell everyone the sources of information for anything? I mean it makes sense, witness protection is kind of expensive and I mean, why should we be hidding them? If they are too scared to testify or give the gov't information, mabye it is cause they are lying?

What about informants names? Should we tell everyone the sources of information for anything? I mean it makes sense, witness protection is kind of expensive and I mean, why should we be hidding them? If they are too scared to testify or give the gov't information, mabye it is cause they are lying?

Let me know how that works out for you.

I'd also like to have detailed lists of their movements, addresses, and so on published on a new website so we can track those snitches at every moment of every day. Also add their family members, we have a right to know!

And certainly we should have full information and transparency from any group that has ever received a subsidy or worked for the government. Publish a notice from the city government? Well you just got public money, the public should be able to read all of your newspapers e-mails and the private ones of your employees. It's only for the purpose of transparency and openness in government!